Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2049 (RAJ)

Kuldeep Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2018-10-05

DINESH MEHTA, SANGEET LODHA

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 12.03.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant/writ-petitioner questioning the legality of the order dated 17.12.2013 issued by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources, North Division, Sri Ganganagar, discontinuing the water supply sanctioned in favour of the respondents no.4 for the purpose of fishery, has been dismissed. 2. The facts relevant are that the respondent no.4-Bhupendra Singh, the brother of the petitioner, applied for sanction of water supply for the purpose of 'fish breeding farm' under the provisions of Rajasthan Irrigation & Drainage Rules, 1955. By order dated 18.6.80, the water supply as applied for was sanctioned in favour of the respondent no.4 by the Executive Engineer. The respondent no.4 availed the water supply for so many years. There was a protracted litigation between the respondent no.4 and the Department of Irrigation, in respect of outstanding demand for water charges. Later, the respondent no.4 made an application to the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department for disconnecting the water supply which was forwarded to the Superintending Engineer, Water Resources, Circle Sri Ganganagar, who in his turn forwarded the same to the Executive Engineer, Water Resources, North Division, Sri Ganganagar. Accepting the request made by the respondent no.4 as aforesaid, vide order dated 17.12.13 issued by the Executive Engineer, the water supply was ordered to be disconnected forthwith. 3. The appellant herein, the brother of the respondent no.4, questioned the legality of the order issued by the Executive Engineer as aforesaid by way of writ petition before this court on the ground that he was running the fishery's business with his brother, the respondent no.4 herein, who had executed an agreement to sale in his favour of the land measuring 10 bighas comprising murabba no.17 including kila no.3 of murabba no.20 where the fisheries pond was located. According to the appellant, a demand of Rs. 12,01,963/- raised by the Executive Engineer towards the water charges was discharged by him and thus, the disconnection of the water supply made, without giving him an opportunity of hearing, by passing a non speaking order, is bad in law. 4. According to the appellant, a demand of Rs. 12,01,963/- raised by the Executive Engineer towards the water charges was discharged by him and thus, the disconnection of the water supply made, without giving him an opportunity of hearing, by passing a non speaking order, is bad in law. 4. It was contended by the appellant before the learned Single Judge that he was also a partner in the fishery's business conducted by his brother, respondent no.4 herein, and therefore, the water supply could not have been withdrawn on the request of the respondent no. 4 unilaterally. In this regard, the reliance was placed on agreement to sale dated 13.7.85, alleged to have been executed by the respondent no.4 in his favour. 5. The learned Single Judge while taking into consideration the agreement to sale produced, observed that the agreement executed, which is not a registered document, has no sanctity in the eye of law and further, there was no material available on record to show that the application for supply of water was made by the respondent no.4 in the capacity of partner in a partnership business. The court opined that the appellant herein has no locusstandi to challenge the action of the respondent no.4 seeking discontinuance of water supply for the fishery. 6. Aggrieved by order dated 12.03.2018 passed by learned Single Judge, the appellant preferred special appeal being DBSAW No.982/2018, which was dismissed as withdrawn by a Bench of this court with liberty to the appellant to file review petition, if occasion so arises. 7. After withdrawal of special appeal as aforesaid, the appellant preferred a review petition before the learned Single Judge, which stands dismissed vide order dated 16.07.2018. 8. In the review petition, the appellant placed on record copy of affidavit sworn by respondent no.4-Bhupendra Singh, wherein he affirmed that fishing pond was always being operated by the appellant herein. The learned Single Judge observed that the document produced was not part of record of writ petition hence, cannot be considered in review application. 9. A perusal of the record reveals that the water supply connection for operating fishery's business was applied for and sanctioned by the competent authority in favour of respondent no.4-Bhupendra Singh. The receipt of the outstanding charges of water supply alleged to have been deposited by the appellant herein is also issued in favour of the respondent no.4-Bhupendra Singh. 9. A perusal of the record reveals that the water supply connection for operating fishery's business was applied for and sanctioned by the competent authority in favour of respondent no.4-Bhupendra Singh. The receipt of the outstanding charges of water supply alleged to have been deposited by the appellant herein is also issued in favour of the respondent no.4-Bhupendra Singh. The agreement to sale and the affidavit placed on record are also not suggestive of the fact that the fishery's business was being operated by a partnership firm constituted by the appellant and the respondent no.4. In absence of any document showing existence of the partnership between the appellant and the respondent no.4, the Executive Engineer has committed no error in discontinuing the water supply on the request made by the respondent no.4, who is the person in whose favour water supply was sanctioned by the competent authority. 10. In this view of the matter, no case for interference by us in intra court appeal jurisdiction is made out. 11. The special appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.